bigruss

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Oct 19, 2010 -> 07:21 PM) Even better reply, just disregard statistics. Of course games need to be played, best way to prepare for it is to have a balance between scouting and statistical production. Morel has good to great defense and that shouldnt be discounted, but his bat could kill an already weak offense (lots of time left in the offseason to fix this still). If not, hello Mariners. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 19, 2010 -> 07:53 PM) I never disregarded his offense. I'm also not the one using only offensive stats to try to justify his worth, or lack there of. Hmm....

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 19, 2010 -> 06:54 PM) Great reply. And until games start getting played on the computer, it is worth nothing. Even better reply, just disregard statistics. Of course games need to be played, best way to prepare for it is to have a balance between scouting and statistical production. Morel has good to great defense and that shouldnt be discounted, but his bat could kill an already weak offense (lots of time left in the offseason to fix this still). If not, hello Mariners.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 19, 2010 -> 05:51 PM) It still neglects the fact that Morel is already a plus defender at 3B for a team that thrives when it gets good defense. Okay Brian Anderson.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Oct 19, 2010 -> 05:05 PM) In his dominant season, Morel had a 27:86 BB:K ratio, or .314 BB per K. That's pretty terrible. QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Oct 19, 2010 -> 05:12 PM) Ok...now back my point like 3 pages ago..... And Brent Morel would like to kindly point out how he won the batting title there last year, and went on to have a "good" season in the minors this year. I would like to kindly point out that Morel had the same BB:K ratio as Juan Uribe has had Morel: 0.31395348837209302325581395348837 Uribe: 0.31428571428571428571428571428571

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Oct 19, 2010 -> 05:00 PM) How about this, you tell me what word you want me to use to describe Morel's "success" last year, and I'll make the same point I've made all along, but with your adjective so you won't be so distracted. Morel had a good season, now that you have another adjective besides "dominant" let's move on.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 19, 2010 -> 04:58 PM) Its like judging a player solely on his ERA. In his dominant season, Morel had a 27:86 BB:K ratio, or .314 BB per K. That's pretty terrible.

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Oct 19, 2010 -> 04:53 PM) What does it matter the word that is used? It's a subjective word that can mean completely different things to different people. It's not a black and white word. It's all to the discretion of the person using it. How about this, you tell me what word you want me to use to describe Morel's "success" last year, and I'll make the same point I've made all along, but with your adjective so you won't be so distracted. Like I said, if you can't distinguish the difference between a dominant season (Pujols) and a good season (Rios) than it's obvious that you can't evaluate a player or their performance accurately. Is it subjective? Sure, you can have your opinion, but if you stated that Rios was dominant this season you will be laughed at.

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Oct 19, 2010 -> 04:34 PM) Only because you are hung up on the choice of word and the connotation you are giving it. That's why I decided to say "successful" so you would stop focusing on the adjective and more about the fact that Morel continued his offensive "insert whatever adjective helps bigruss sleep at night" from the AFL to the next season. That's the whole idea here, yet we have wasted a page or so because you don't like the adjective used. Because you still won't admit that it was a bad choice of words? Or that you haven't defended your use of it besides stating "semantics." So when you were questioned how you could label both performances as "dominant" you just said "semantics," and that adds a whole lot to the conversation.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 19, 2010 -> 04:35 PM) There is more to a player than his OPS. True, but it tells alot about a player.

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Oct 19, 2010 -> 04:19 PM) How Mike Stanton is in this argument at all makes no sense to me. And the fact that dominance has to be tied to one person instead being a blanket adjective is just laughable to me. Semantics, semantics, semantics. J4L brought him up, and you said that both him and Morel dominated, and yes blanketing both of them into the same category is laughable.

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Oct 19, 2010 -> 04:09 PM) Ohhh boy, nevermind. Clearly we are not going to make a connection here. It's a valid point, you said both player's dominated, which is simply not true. If you think an .850 OPS is dominating everything you said should be taken with a grain of salt.

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Oct 19, 2010 -> 04:07 PM) All you are arguing at this point is semantics. Choose whatever adjective you really want to describe success, and the point still stands that he was "successful" in the AFL, and "successful" in the minors the following year. If you think successful = dominant than why even bother talking about a player's performance?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 19, 2010 -> 02:16 PM) Love this move for the Cubs. There is a downside of course, as Sandberg will be pissed, ergo some fans will be pissed. But I was actually impressed with Quade in his time with the team. This was the smart, and unexpected, move. Very non-Cub-like. Agreed, I loved how he has an old school philosophy to coaching, but was open to learning about stats and if someone made a valid point to him he would listen. You can't find that in many MLB managers.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 19, 2010 -> 02:33 PM) You didn't used to be, but you have shot up the prospect charts this year like Escobar out of nowhere. Being realistic and pointing out flaws of the organization and how they need to change in areas or it will come back to haunt them and providing evidence of why seems very different than the numerous posters who just say "this.team.is.dead." It's been known for years that KW neglected the draft and player development, and it's haunted him for years. The organization has improved in those aspects, but how much and was it soon enough to sustain this team going forward? All very valid concerns IMO.

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Oct 19, 2010 -> 02:42 PM) My point is that Brent Morel was hailed as "all defense" non-prospect. Then he went to the AFL, dominated offensively, and then next year in the minors, continued to dominate offensively. Point being that his AFL success carried over to the next season, and now Morel is a legit prospect in baseball. Just because it's the AFL does not mean a player who succeeded won't succeed in the following season.... case in point, Brent Morel. So take your Mike Stanton references elsewhere because he is completely irrelevant to this conversation. Just because you dominate in the AFL doesn't mean it will carryover. Case in point, Flowers, Retherford, etc. The AFL has almost always been a hitting dominant league, as most star pitching prospect aren't sent there.

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Oct 19, 2010 -> 02:39 PM) I don't know how the hell this turned into Morel vs. Stanton, or how only 1 player can be described as dominant. Is only the best player "dominant" and the rest are just "good"?? Makes no sense. Just because they both dominated in the minors doesn't mean they are equal. There is a difference between domination and a player who did well. If you can't see that than I don't know what to say. There are multiple players who dominated, Stanton being one of them. Then there are guys like Morel who played well, but in no way did he dominate (good average and decent power, but that doesn't mean he dominated at all).

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Oct 19, 2010 -> 12:52 PM) ........ *crickets* .313 .442 .729 1.171 vs. .322 .359 .480 .839 Ummm...yea, one dominated, and one played well.

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Oct 19, 2010 -> 12:47 PM) Mike Stanton dominated too, so what's your point? LOL really?

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Oct 19, 2010 -> 07:12 AM) I've actually found it funny. Samsies.

QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Oct 13, 2010 -> 08:26 PM) Danks is not an obvious keeper whatsoever. In fact, he's an obvious trade chip because he's going to want the moon when it's his time, and he's not worth more than a few stars. It's pretty obvious KW, is going to go next year with Viciedo and Morel at 1B/3B unless someone like Adrian Beltre comes cheap. I believe Putz will be resigned. I'm pretty sure Thornton is our setup man or did I miss out on that? Our bench is definitely not a problem. Meant as in tendering him a contract. And that team doesn't win the Central, again.

QUOTE (bucket-of-suck @ Oct 19, 2010 -> 11:26 AM) Right now he's a kid who just homered and went 3-for-4 with a stolen base and two runs scored against among the best AA competition out there. The AFL has always been a hitters league. Very few legitimate top ptichers will be sent there. Once in awhile you'll have a Strausburg getting some work in, but for the most part teams shut their pitchers down.

QUOTE (fathom @ Oct 19, 2010 -> 11:20 AM) Much rather they get him than the Tigers or Twins, two teams that he's been linked to this upcoming offseason. It'll be interesting to see where everyone ends up, because apparently Grienke is on the market too now, which could really affect where Lee gets the best offer.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 19, 2010 -> 11:19 AM) Yes they do. And there are also some people who like to make everything out to the extremes, which is what I was responding to. Clearly, this guy is not a blue chip prospect. Also clearly, he's not a lowly blip that would not even be that in another system. People want to categorize prospects as either blue chip can't-miss (which doesn't exist), or nothing. Except most prospects are in between. Its all about percentages - percent likelihood he's a major leaguer, present likelihood he's a major league starter, percent likelihood he's an all star. He's young enough that you can't bring down his ceiling a lot yet, but his floor looks to me like a utility guy, with a notable chance he becomes a starter. That's a guy worth watching in any system, IMO, especially for a shortstop. Yea, but you replied to my post, which stated that he was a decent prospect, and I said he was worth watching. Arguing an extreme with another extreme really isn't the answer.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 19, 2010 -> 11:02 AM) No, he put up a .316 OBP combined in A+ and AA (it was .327 in A+), as a 21 year old, with a decent slugging number for a non-HR hitter thanks to solid 2B and 3B numbers. As, again, a shortstop with plus defense, and apparently some decent speed. Its just his bat control that worries me with the K's, but he's still young, and those numbers have improved (along with most of his numbers) in recent years. He'll have to improve that OBP still with those numbers to be worth a damn as a hitter. Honestly, some people on here get so damn defensive about mediocre prospects. Does this guy have a chance to be a good prospect? Yup he does. But right now he's a 21 year old who struggles getting on base, strikes out a ton, and doesn't have HR power, but has a great glove. That screams future bench player if he can even hit enough to make the majors. Is he a guy to watch? Yes, but just because somebody points out a flaw doesn't mean they don't think he's a prospect.

Hopefully he does pan out, but it's pretty hard to get excited about a guy who had a breakout year with a .315 OBP in single A, with not much power and who strikes out alot. Prospect? Yes. Potential? Sure, mostly because of his defense. Rate of prospect? Average.